by emgoldstein on 10/19/15, 2:43 AM with 103 comments
by austerity on 10/19/15, 9:34 AM
On a different note, I don't understand how anyone can consider equality of outcome desirable, regardless of whether it's achievable or not. If your outcome is guaranteed to be equal to that of others then it by definition doesn't depend on your own choices. If it's not the ultimate unhuman antiutopian existence I don't know what is.
by asgard1024 on 10/19/15, 8:21 AM
Most people, if they would be paid based on merit, couldn't survive in our society, because they produce so little of value on its own.
Fighting for "meritocracy" therefore becomes fight for attribution, how big piece of resulting pie you deserve. But this deserve has not much to do with merit of your work, it has to do with your ability to fight for it, imperfect information, and kindness of other people.
by taliesinb on 10/19/15, 8:12 AM
Just as a universal basic income is presented as one antidote to wealth inequality, the idea of universal genetic enhancement is presented, specifically of intelligence (whatever that is). If we assume it's a fait accompli that members of our elites will pursue genetic enhancement of intelligence for their children or themselves, what are the strongest consequentialist objections to the idea of free, universally-provided genetic enhancement, assuming such therapies are actually effective, practical, and safe?
One obvious objection is of a "Brave New World" variety: we have yet no idea how systematic selection to increase "g" (or any trait, for that matter), could stunt or enhance other traits, deplete valuable kinds of cognitive diversity we can't yet measure, or twist our values in some immeasurable and negative way.
Worse still, it's easy to imagine government scientists in more authoritarian societies stumbling on allele combinations that enhanced political docility, consumption-oriented behavior, thriftiness, and so on, and selecting for those in the next generation to solve demographic, economic, or political problems.
On the flip side of that fear is the hope that we could select for propensities that help us solve the daunting list of global co-ordination problems that now face us, climate change and dangerous AI being the two most generic ones. The consequences of failure there are so dire that we may even have reason to see such enhancement as necessary -- the equivalent of a species-level adrenaline shot to get us through an existential crisis.
And what if we could make ourselves less dishonest, manipulative, cynical, and tribalistic? What if we could design our values to be different from what they are, to be what we wished they were? That's much scarier for me, for reasons that are harder to explain. And it mirrors a bit the problems of building an self-enhancing AI that doesn't "diverge to evil".
I'm sure there's a rich seam of blogosphere material out there on these topics, maybe even some academic papers, would be very interested if someone is willing to share some links to specific arguments or discussions.
by SideburnsOfDoom on 10/19/15, 9:02 AM
Anyone care to comment on that? I thought that taking "The Bell Curve" seriously was a big red flag?
by tanderson92 on 10/19/15, 7:24 AM
by beatpanda on 10/19/15, 7:42 AM
IQ, and all the other "objective" measures he leaves as an exercise to the reader to define, mostly measure how well-adapted a person is to society such as it currently works right now.
If you believe we've arrived at the society we have now due to "human nature" or some other kind of natural settling, and not, to just pick one alternate hypothesis, an unimaginable amount of violence and plunder carried out across the globe over the last few centuries, then the conclusions in this article make sense.
Otherwise, it probably has some holes.
by ZeroGravitas on 10/19/15, 8:12 AM
"(b) creating opportunities for those born on the wrong side of the tracks, so if you start with very little that doesn’t mean you’ll end up with very little, or that your children will"
And you see immediately why meritocracy is a sham. No one wants their stupid and lazy kids to end up "with little", and the rich have the means to ensure this happens.
Of course, like many things to do with rich vs poor, this applies on the national scale too. And generally not even those on the wrong side of the tracks think that people on the wrong side of the border, regardless of merit, should be allowed to cross it to get a better life.
by arethuza on 10/19/15, 8:25 AM
by pron on 10/19/15, 8:16 AM
Luckily, we who have studied computer science and know a thing or two about completeness and complexity and therefore the limits of reason, can easily call the bluff. After all, when human beings are concerned a solution to a problem may involve nothing more than swaying the minds of people, something people with high intelligence often seem comically unable to do.
So while I could easily think of a few qualities humanity is in urgent need of more than intelligence — charisma, empathy, good looks and a sense of humor — I believe that this particular piece would have been much better if the author’s eugenics plan had been in effect prior to his birth.
by brohee on 10/19/15, 8:49 AM
It really makes me wonder about the author IQ.
by TazeTSchnitzel on 10/19/15, 7:24 AM
by rdtsc on 10/19/15, 6:46 AM
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/09/meritocracy_is_a_massive_lie...
by panic on 10/19/15, 8:09 AM
by ricksplat on 10/19/15, 12:08 PM
Sorry. Nope. Too much other stuff to read to be giving time to an article that employs such a fallacious and/or naive opening to be bothered.
Sorry if I'm wrong, but this has immediately marked itself out as a propaganda piece, and I note it has been deservedly flagged.
Next ... !
by yarrel on 10/19/15, 6:32 AM
by PhasmaFelis on 10/19/15, 8:31 AM
So, yeah, I'm thinking troll. That or "articulate nutcase." But probably troll.